Legal Opinion

Steiner v. Markel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 29, 2009No. 62 MAP 2008PublishedCited by 98 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice GREENSPAN.

We consider whether the Superior Court may declare, sua sponte, that a cause of action described in a complaint as a claim for “professional malpractice” is actually a claim for breach of contract for purposes of determining which statute of limitation applies. Appellants, John F. Markel, Esquire, and Nikolaus & Hohenadel, LLP (collectively referred to as the “Attorneys”), appeal from the Superior Court’s order reversing the trial court’s decision in the Attorneys’ favor of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. We reverse the Superior Court and reinstate the trial…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Wiegand v. WiegandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Estate of Swift Ex Rel. Swift v. Northeastern Hospital of PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Kituskie v. CorbmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Grossman v. BarkeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by98 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Mason, L., ApltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  2. Commonwealth v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  3. Commonwealth v. ColavitaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Wolfe, M.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010

93 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API